Share:

Comments

Dear Ol,
You have invited various media for conference but what is the main topic to be discuss in conference???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
All the Best

I agree with what you have said during the conference. According to the law , Sonam Tshering should be punished . But what kind of a law is that. Like many others there is so much room for interpretation and bases for questions. Since, the Sonam Tshering case, I have been thinking a lot about this law and I feel that this policy was not well analysed or even well informed to the people. Many people are not aware of the procedure because there was no awareness creation on how things should be conducted.
Secondly, it is not clear whether consumption of tobacco is illegal or buying it without a tax receipt is. I am saying this because since the ban I notice that many people ask each other for tobacco. People who have the receipt share their products with people who don’t. In this case the product is legal but the person who is consuming doesn’t have the receipt. So would that mean the person will be punished for consumption of tobacco. If it is, then its illegal to consume and therefore, purchase should not be allowed, with or without receipts. How does the Government intend to monitor this.
Another room for flaw is that fact that anybody can buy tobacco with a receipt. This allows non consumers to pretend to be consumers ( since there is no telling by looking at the face whether or not one is a consumer) and there are possibilities that they will buy the product and may be sell them at a higher rate. This is another form of black market but the product remains legal. If asked for the source, the source will have a legal receipt.
These implications should have been well analysed before establishing such an act. However, from past experiences and watching the procedures, many such cases (including non tobacco related) are mostly dealt with based on the interpretation of the concerned people and most cases there are barely any uniformity.
I think Sonam Tshering should appeal to the high court and high court should analyse the law and the many questions it has raised before making a judgment. Three years is long time to stay in prison and for something so small it is heart breaking not just for the offender but also for us. This case should not be considered as a lesson for people but as a consequence of a policy that was established without proper research and analysis.
I wish him and the two others that were unfortunate all the best and hope that the they will be out of this nightmare soon.

I just have a simple question? Did you take up this case because Sonam Tshering is from your constituency or would you have done it for any citizen? You know, whatever you have done, there has always been room for wrong assumption for ppl. Eg, why didnt you object the CD grant, i know the answer, coz you were also benefiting from it. Why only the tax case, why you didnt raise voice when the Tobacco Act is passed, why now?why now. Is this the best way to stay in limelight. Apart from applauding your success, ppl can think if this is the way your warming up for the next elections. No doubt we would love to see you take part in this but I dont mind having you back as the opposition party, you do a good job.

i seriously support sonam and would like to join him in asking why OL did not do something that was within his purview in NA hall when this tobacco act being voted for to pass it. Were OL snoring that time?

This issues of the recent days raised by OL however seems very very danger. Opposition in our context is not at all to oppose but to consult and submit views. This really concerned us to think whether we really have the concerned and forward thinking OL. Lets help democracy success.

Dear OL, the SC verdict has really pissed the govt., and its very evident from how JYT is reacting (like a kid who has lost his goody). JYT has been going around saying that the govt has not broken the law and that it will weaken democracy and poor will suffer which is “BULLSHIT” coming from this “big bull”. If that is so one question that needs to be asked is why is JYT govt not allowing “nano car” in Bhutan. If JYT is so concerned about the poor then Nano cars should be allowed. Nanos are any day better than scooters. If he at all feels that poor should benefit then he has to promote nanos.

Sonam and Tom n Jerry, try to do some research on what OL has done before going accusing OL of playing petty politics.
OL has always objected the Tobacco act from the first day it was introduced in the NA, but since there is only two of them, thanks to you guys, nothing could be done. For the record OL voted NO for the tobacco act, try to search his blog here too, we had numerous OL clearly objected it and raised his concern from day one. The only person snoring and voting YES are the DPT dogs, they act like barking dogs. Dogs are like that, when one barks rest barks without knowing why the first dog is barking. I was told by various people that many DPT MPs get up three times during the National Assembly sessions, once for tea, once for bathroom and once for lunch.
You ask why OL supported CDG, for the record go through OLs blog again, OL never supported CDG, and he still does not support it. So do some research instead of trying to make yourself look like a fool.
Oh if you are wondering OL also does not support, State funding of political parties, while DPT, want it. Although if OL really wants it, he can take DPT to court for their illegal indirect state funding of political party right now.
There you have it, if you want to know about OL, go through his, blog, it is not hard, you will find everything.

OL had written to EC requesting for reconsidering their decision on MITSI (census) transfer for the candidates who stood for election in the last local thromde elections where constitution and the local government act mandated the candidates to have their MITSI in their respective region at least for a minimum of one year before they stood for the election. EC dint bother to answer him and they went ahead with the election and now our Thrompons are in place.

The simple question is that, when government violated (not violated) the constitution on raising tax without putting up in the parliament, he argued with the government on the issue being unconstitutional, but government went ahead without listening to him. But OL resorted in suing the govt in the court of law and he had done that. Similarly, OL had intervened the ECB, but didnt bother and done their(ECB) job so sucessfully. Now, what is OL`s stand on this? Is OL not taking the ECB to court as well? or is OL mandated to oppose and take up the issues only against the government or the Prime Minster? If OL is`mandate is only within the parliament, government, suing the case in the court against the govt, then OL should not have written a letter to ECB interfering on ECB`s noble decision.

Traala, don’t expect any answer from the OL to your query. What this tells us is that the OL has double standards. Funny, how all those people who supported the OL on the tax issue have conveniently chosen to ignore the ECB case, after all the ECB has committed the same crime as the government and that is to violate the constitution.

In a similar vein, I had questioned the OL as to whether the appointment of one of the justices of the supreme court was in contravention of the constitution, suffice to say he gave me a vague reply.

This i fully suppose is that, nobody including me is trying to miss interpret or misguide the general public or the OL. The issue of suing the government for violating the constitution and not suing the ECB for violating the constitution is still a un-answered concern. By this, no body would mean that ECB be taken to the court by OL, coz that was the last thing ECB could did, to take off the long delayed local elections. This was done as a one time measure though it did deviated from the constitution. The interest and issue of inviting this discussion is never on “Let OL take ECB to the court for violating the constitution” but on what grounds and bottom line OL had decided to take government to court and not ECB to the court for the same offense???